Alan Johnson: The hon. Gentleman and I have clashed on various occasions, but in a good-natured way. I cannot understand a question that seems to place the onus in these negotiations on the Government Front Bench, the Opposition Front Bench or any other person in the House. The responsibility for the situation in relation to Turner and Newell and Federal-Mogul, which is of huge concern to his constituents and those of others around the House, is a matter for the company, its trade unions and its shareholders. It is up to them to find a solution to the problem, and I very much hope that he will join me in urging them to redouble their efforts to do so.

Malcolm Wicks: I thank my hon. Friend for inviting me to visit Tameside. I was very impressed to see what a progressive local authority can do to deliver benefit entitlements to people in need. As my hon. Friend knows, we developed joint teams as part of our link age project. Social services departments worked with local branches of the Pension Service, joined in some areas by primary care trusts or voluntary bodies such as Age Concern. That is how we deliver a welfare state locally, based on the needs of elderly people. In the past we have tended to expect elderly people to discover an often complex local welfare state, but Tameside is showing the way ahead. We intend to roll out its scheme throughout the country during the next year or two.

Tim Collins: I invite the hon. Gentleman to consider whether the independent judgment of head teachers should be trusted in a way in which employees of the present Home Office should not.
	The Times Educational Supplement reported that teaching unions thought that the figures might be underestimates, since schools may have failed to report the full figures for fear of being labelled "failing". In other words, the numbers involved in acts of violence may be greater than the statistics that I quoted earlier. The Government may say that they have set a target to reduce permanent exclusions, which have been reduced by some 3,000 since 1997. However, given the steady rise in incidents of violence and indiscipline in schools and the number of teachers who cite poor behaviour as a major contributor to their stress, it cannot be argued that exclusions are falling because behaviour is improving. On the contrary, the Government have introduced a target to reduce the number of punishments handed out, rather than the number of offences committed. It is like the Home Office aiming to reduce the number of arrests rather than the number of crimes.
	That is simply the wrong way to go about things. The Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and many senior members of the Government have rightly discussed the need to implement zero-tolerance policies to tackle yobbishness among young people. They have spoken persuasively about the way in which small acts of rule infringement escalate into far more serious issues if society sends our the message that it either does not care about those rules or is incapable of enforcing them, and they are entirely right. What is strange, however, is to take the view that zero tolerance is the right approach towards young people out on the street, but the wrong approach when they are in school. Indeed, zero tolerance is arguably more important in schools, given that by definition those who are shaped by the prevailing attitude towards rules are at the most impressionable stages of their lives.
	The first part of the distinctive Conservative approach towards restoring discipline is to restore to heads the absolute and final authority to expel pupils whose poor behaviour makes them unfit to be part of that community. There should be no targets for the number of exclusions and no pressure, implicit or explicit, to go for a softer option. We do not believe that heads would use expulsion as anything other than a last resort, but if they need to use it, they must be able to use it without fear or favour.

Tim Collins: Certainly in the short term, I would expect the number of exclusions to increase, which is why—I shall come on to this point later in my remarks—we have allocated significant public spending to multiply by six the number of places in what the Government currently call pupil referral units, which we would call "turn-around schools". We take the view that the subject is serious and that head teachers should be given greater freedom. If that means that more are excluded, more provision needs to be made for them.
	A recent poll showed that 74 per cent. of the public—

Patrick McLoughlin: My hon. Friend referred to the expectation that exclusions may increase in the short term once this policy has been put into effect. Does not he agree that although that may be the case in the short term, in the longer term parents and pupils will be given the message that if children do not behave, they will be removed from school, which will mean that fewer people are referred to turn-around schools?

Stephen Twigg: Expressed in percentage terms, it does not sound dramatic, but when expressed in terms of the number of pupils, I am sure that even the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) would accept that an additional 17,000 pupils in school each day this year, compared with the previous year, is to be celebrated. The fact that there is over 40,000 more pupils each day in school, compared with 1996–97, is real evidence of improvement, which I would hope that all parts of the House would celebrate.

Tim Collins: The Minister is right to say that it is important to give an accurate and balanced sense of what is going on, but he said that the NASUWT figures related to only 60 or 70 assaults on teachers—I think that that is what he implied—so would he not also put that in the context of the more recent statistics from the Office for National Statistics showing that in a single term in 2003 more than 4,000 pupils were excluded either temporarily of permanently for violent assaults on adults, almost all of them teachers? It is important to stress that side of it, too.

Stephen Twigg: Absolutely. I am always in favour of learning from our mistakes. If the Conservatives had done so once or twice when in government, they might be in stronger position today.
	On violence, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale cited certain research referred to in the motion and I cited other research. A range of information is available on violence, particularly that suffered by teachers. Unfortunately, we do not have data covering the number of assaults on teachers and other staff, but we do have the Health and Safety Executive's figures on serious injuries to primary and secondary teachers in Great Britain caused by physical violence. In 1997–98, there were 119 such injuries. In 2000–01, that figure rose to 135, and it fell to 110 in 2001–02, the latest year for which we have fully verified HSE figures. That demonstrates that the number of such injuries is not necessarily increasing; however, we do face a very significant problem and challenge in this regard.
	In partnership with the teacher unions, the Department is running a project to identify best practice in schools on violence avoidance and conflict resolution. As my colleagues will know, we are also working with the Home Office in support of the safer schools partnerships programme, which has led to the basing of more than 400 police officers in schools to reduce criminality and victimisation, and to improve the safety of staff and pupils. We are also supporting Skillsforce, an increase in the funding for which I was delighted to announce last week. There is powerful evidence that it has made a real difference by increasing the motivation of children and young people, and by reducing exclusion in those schools that form part of this programme.
	The motion
	"deplores the announcement by the Government that it will force every state school, irrespective of the wishes of its head teacher, to take a share of pupils with disruptive or even violent backgrounds".
	However, this announcement is not about forcing head teachers to take disruptive pupils; it is about ensuring that when previously excluded pupils are ready to be re-integrated in schools, they are not sent to just one or two schools in a given locality. Both head teachers and school staff fully support the Government's proposal, which will help schools to co-operate in putting pupils back on the right track.
	I shall follow the practice of the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale and quote from the various organisations involved. On the day that we announced this package, a representative of the Secondary Heads Association said:
	"I welcome today's package of measures, which demonstrates strong government support for head teachers in dealing with discipline problems."
	The National Association of Head Teachers said:
	"We endorse the need for limits to be placed on the number of excluded pupils who are dumped on schools because they have spare places. Too often this has a bad impact on a small number of schools in each local education authority. Schools around the country are already working together . . . There is absolutely no reason why this co-operation should not apply nationwide."

Stephen Twigg: There are things that can be said in opposition that are unlikely to become practice in the unlikely event of the Opposition coming to power in the immediate future.
	I shall share with the House the statistics for independent appeal panels. In 2002–03, the latest year for which figures are available, independent appeal panels reinstated 149 out of 9,290 permanently excluded pupils, or less than 2 per cent. It cannot therefore be seriously argued that the abolition of independent appeal panels will make a big difference to the numbers of pupils excluded from school.
	We have heard a call for a six-fold increase in the number of places to be provided for high-quality, intensive but separate education of those whose behavioural difficulties make them unsuitable for inclusion in mainstream schools. We heard clarification from the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale that that increase was based on a previous figure, so the six-fold increase would not take us from the 13,000 places that are available now to 78,000, which would cost around £650 million, but would mean an increase to 24,000, which is a more modest increase than that set out in the motion today.
	I would argue that preventive work by schools to improve behaviour is the better solution for the vast majority of pupils rather than taking them away from their schools.

Stephen Twigg: In a sense, that is what we are all grappling with in the debate—whether legislation is required, or whether the various existing codes, advice and guidance from both the PCC and ACPO are sufficient. We all need to watch the matter closely, but the Government are not persuaded, at this point, of the case for legislation. As the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale rightly accepted, we have recognised that part of the problem is to do with the delays that often exist in the system. Not only may teachers face an allegation that turns out to be false, but the system itself is ill-equipped and ill-prepared to deal with that allegation efficiently. We have analysed about 1,600 cases over the past year. Most of them were resolved quite quickly but an unacceptably high number—although not quite as high as the number I quoted on the "Today" programme—take longer: 22 per cent. take up to three months, while about one in 10 takes as long as a year. We are currently consulting teacher unions and others about how we can put in place an effective system so that if an allegation is made, it is dealt with speedily and efficiently, which is in the best interests of the accused and the accuser.
	To conclude, the motion says that
	"it is time for the rights of the majority of pupils, parents and teachers to be given greater weight."
	Of course, all pupils have rights as well as responsibilities. They have a responsibility to behave well, both for their own sake and for the sake of others in the school; to respect other pupils and authority, which is why we are investing in 10,000 learning mentors and, as I have said, doubled the capacity of pupil referral units. However, we do not want to abandon anyone, because that blights their future and creates problems for the communities in which they live. I do not believe that costly privatised borstals are the answer to any or every problem. It is far better to support collaboration among schools to offer any learner a second chance once their behaviour problems have been dealt with.
	Parents play a crucial role in children's learning and behaviour. They have rights, as the motion says, but they also have duties. Local education authorities and schools employ a range of informal and supportive strategies to help parents tackle their children's behaviour. A small minority of parents, however, are unwilling do so, which is why we have introduced a number of measures, including parenting orders and the new penalty notice scheme, to reduce truancy. We take behaviour and discipline seriously, which is why we have put significant resources into that programme. We have invested in this area in a way that no Government have done before. The real challenge for all of us is to promote respect and discipline—respect for one another but also respect for authority, as the hon. Member for Buckingham rightly said when he talked about the six Rs. We want every child to have the very best chance. Good progress has been made, but many challenges remain.

Phil Willis: The hon. Gentleman is making a most thoughtful and considered speech. Does he share the concern that I have about the solution proposed by his party's Front Benchers? It seems to be looking for an institutional, one-size-fits-all solution to what is an incredibly complex problem. He will know from a former life that one of the things that turn around some of our most disillusioned young people is engaging with the world of work: employers can be part of the solution. Turnaround schools, or borstals, or whatever we want to call them, cannot be the only solution. We need to seek a plethora of solutions, including one on one, distance learning, perhaps home tuition, workplace placements and pupil referral units, as well as other schools and institutions.

Andrew Turner: I begin by echoing what the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) said about the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman). It was indeed thoughtful and constructive, and I hope that I can add further to that tendency in this debate.
	I support the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) that teachers should be entitled to anonymity when allegations are made against them, and certainly up to the point at which they are formally charged. I should make it clear that Alastair Wilbee—the former head teacher of Summerfields school, who killed himself following the allegations made against him—was not named in the Isle of Wight County Press until after he had been charged. I have had long discussions about the rights and wrongs of my hon. Friend's proposal with the editor of that publication, and I have also discussed them with Alastair's widow. I also met representatives of other teachers and head teachers in my constituency and I believe that there is a considerable measure of support for the proposal. Other measures could be taken as well to make the trauma of such an allegation less damaging. One such measure that I would like the House to consider is whether it is right for suspension always, or almost always, to take place when such allegations are made.
	I recognise that the allegation of abuse covers a wide range of activities, some of which we would all agree should lead to immediate suspension and some of which might be accommodated by a lesser step. I accept, of course, that it is difficult to contemplate a lesser step when a head teacher is concerned. Nevertheless, I would suggest that a representative of the local education authority should go to the chairman of governors to say that a head teacher should be suspended. The chairman should feel under pressure to suspend and should decide to do so with the LEA representative present. Simply giving someone 10 minutes to clear his desk and leave is an overreaction to some kinds of allegation. It might be more appropriate for the LEA representative to remain in the school for a while and perhaps for the head—or any teacher, for that matter—not to be allowed to be with a child unaccompanied, particularly not with the child who has made the allegation. Those matters need to be considered carefully and unemotionally.
	It is my belief that Mr. Wilbee's trauma arose from the fact that he was unable to speak to any of his staff, to any of the parents or to his professional colleagues to any great extent, with the LEA simply casting him adrift and leaving him for months with the allegations hanging over him before there was any decision to prosecute him. There was a long period between his suspension and the decision to prosecute. I believe that that could happen to other head teachers. I support the proposal advanced by Conservative Front Benchers because I find it extraordinary that, as a society, we are prepared to accept the anonymity of convicted paedophiles, but not to protect that of unconvicted teachers and head teachers.
	Other aspects of the motion have been debated at some length, but I should like to add a little to each. On exclusions, it is extraordinary to listen to Government Front Benchers who give the impression not that the history of education began in 1997, but almost that it began in 2001. Perhaps the Home Secretary was right when he said that the Secretary of State for Education and Skills had gone a bit soft. Certainly the Secretary of State and his team appear a great deal more reasonable, at least most of the time, than their predecessors between 1997 and 2001. It was those predecessors who said that too many pupils were being excluded, who demanded reductions in their number and who suggested that schools should be fined for excluding pupils. Those same predecessors also made the rules much more difficult for head teachers confronted by appeal panels. I see the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis) nodding. He obviously recognises the failure of his predecessors in this matter.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) has completed his speech.

Ivan Lewis: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that the relationship between home and school is essential. We can have the best teachers, curriculum and heads, but the support, involvement and engagement of parents is vital.
	It is also true to say that behaviour can shape the destiny of disruptive children whose negative behaviour leads to poor grades and, all too frequently, entry into the criminal justice system. We all know that poor behaviour can eat away at the heart of communities, spilling out of the classroom into the neighbourhood with a small minority engaging in corrosive antisocial behaviour. We all accept the importance of these issues and we have had a range of sensible, mature contributions to today's debate. What has been lacking in quantity has been made up for in quality.
	The hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) cited recent opinion polls in defence of his view that standards of behaviour are in decline. If we use opinion polls as a measure, I am not sure whether Labour is heading for a majority of 120 or 150 at the next general election. He talked about the number of Members who contributed to the debate, but a ratio of 3:1 Opposition and Labour Back Benchers is hardly a ringing endorsement of an Opposition day. My hon. Friends the Members for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) made important interventions, although they did not have the opportunity to make full speeches.
	I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman that the question of behaviour and discipline is not exclusively concerned with areas of social deprivation. I also accept that we need to do better in terms of the delays in placing children appropriately when things go wrong at schools. But it is a little rich when he speaks for a party that in government did not insist on any requirement to offer excluded children any quality or quantity of education. Indeed, those were the very children who were roaming the streets, causing havoc, with no sensible Government response.
	The hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) raised the important issue of the need to consider the consequences of dysfunctional families and young people's home lives. He also talked about the exciting flexibilities that are beginning to open up now in terms of the 14 to 16 curriculum. Partnerships between schools and colleges, and between schools, colleges and employers, as the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) mentioned, are trying to motivate young people and turn them on to education, rather than to turn them off. The White Paper, which we will introduce in January in response to the Tomlinson proposals, will directly address the issue of a flexible, responsive and personalised curriculum.
	The hon. Member for Southport and other hon. Members raised the anonymity of teachers, which is clearly an important, delicate and sensitive issue. We have expressed our concern about further legislation, although we are concerned about undue delays. We must not send out the message today that, when children make allegations, the assumption must be that they are not telling the truth. The calibration of the message from this debate is important, because there are many examples of children who have disclosed abuses that turned out to be true. We also know that, throughout history, many children in our society have suffered in silence as a consequence of adult abuse. That does not mean that we should not do everything that we can to be sensitive to those teachers who are subject to false allegations that prove to be entirely untrue.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (John Cryer) made a powerful contribution, the central element of which was that Conservative policies do not stack up. How can a party say that it will slash taxes and raise public expenditure on education at the same time? Those two policies do not square with each other. If we add to that the Conservative party's record in government and its disinvestment in public services—we are now paying the price in terms of the social problems that the Government are having to deal with—the British people will simply not buy their policies or find them credible.
	The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) made a powerful, well-informed and authoritative speech, which perhaps explains why he is having to leave the House at the next election. He acknowledged the recent improvements, which are largely the result of not only this Government, but head teachers and teachers up and down the country, and did not perpetuate the myth that the situation is getting worse and that behaviour is deteriorating. He rightly raised the questions of low aspirations, poor parenting and community influence over the behaviour of children and young people. We must address those issues through not only the education system, but joined-up policies.
	The hon. Gentleman also referred to heroic school leaders. We should pay tribute to the many dynamic heads who deal with children of all abilities, potential and behavioural standards on a day-to-day basis and who make their schools work impressively.
	The hon. Gentleman rightly referred to the impact of exclusion. The correlation between exclusion and entry into the criminal justice system is indisputable. We should therefore do everything that we can to minimise the number of children and young people who are excluded from our education system in the first place, while recognising that some will always need to be excluded because their behaviour is unacceptable. The link between young people in the criminal justice system and those who are excluded from school is frightening and should concern us all.
	The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) spoke sensitively about the effect on his constituent of allegations that perhaps turned out not to be true—the consequences were certainly tragic. He also referred to suspension. The difficultly is that suspension, which occurs in all sorts of walks of life and workplaces, is often described as a neutral measure. Its victims do not always feel that the measure is neutral, but people in management and leadership positions must have a way in which to make these difficult choices. I will pass on to the Secretary of State for Education and Skills his powerful defence of his record on behaviour and discipline.
	On the fair distribution of challenging pupils, many pupils do not go from school to a pupil referral unit or out of the school system. Sometimes schools feel that they have no option but to place a child elsewhere when things do not work out. In those circumstances, is it not right that every school in an area should take some responsibility for those challenging children who are not placed in a pupil referral unit but placed in a school setting? Some schools are doing their best to come out of special measures and difficult circumstances, and they are doing incredibly well. Is it right to expect them to deal with all the challenging young people and children in any one community? That cannot be fair or equitable.
	The hon. Gentleman also referred to this Government's chequered history, which is cheeky coming from a party that had 18 years of unbroken rule in which to transform and challenge some of those difficulties.
	The hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) made a thoughtful and informed contribution. She discussed college-school partnerships and made the point that they should be rooted in clear responsibility and accountability. I was worried when she said that whenever she sits on an appeals panel, she always supports the head teacher because if one were on a jury and admitted that approach, one would be in some difficultly. She described how she weakened on one occasion, and I wish that I had been there to see it.
	The hon. Lady rightly pointed to the important contribution that school councils can make. School councils can get young people to discuss behaviour and see the importance of parameters and boundaries. They make a direct difference to standards of behaviour in schools, which is why the Government have said that pupil councils and student councils should be good practice in all our schools. She was also right to emphasise the importance of parental involvement.
	We accept that this issue is important, but the differences between us are simple. We differ on the solutions and on the attempt by the Tories to misrepresent the state of the system. This Government were the first to put attendance and discipline at the heart of school standards. Through our early years education and child care revolution, we are offering interventions that can make a long-term difference. We are focusing on school leadership as the key to creating the right ethos and an effective approach to discipline in every school.
	This Government are ensuring that every classroom teacher has access to training and support on how to manage discipline. We have introduced a focus on the early years of secondary school, where pupil behaviour frequently deteriorates. We are freeing up the curriculum and rebuilding vocational education—and not only for difficult and challenging young people. We also seek a personalised learning offer to motivate young people, not turn them off, and to engage with voluntary organisations and colleges.
	This Government have caused schools to place a much greater priority on school attendance. We have introduced learning support units, learning mentors and police in schools to help manage discipline. We have doubled the number of places in pupil referral units and insisted that permanently excluded pupils should have access to full-time education for the first time. As the hon. Member for Fareham acknowledged, we have reformed exclusion appeal panels to include more people with classroom experience and required those panels to balance the interests of the overall school community with individual pupil's rights. We have introduced a focus on parental responsibility to support schools through parenting contracts and orders and are taking tackling bullying seriously.
	Despite the encouraging signs, we are not complacent and will continue to put behaviour at the heart of our school standards agenda. By contrast, the Tories would introduce a network of sink specialist schools that would produce yet another generation of sink children. They would abolish appeals panels, leading to cases ending in the courts mired in a swamp of litigation and legal bills, which is a charter for lawyers, not for improved discipline.
	The Tories' cuts to early-years provision would ensure that more children and young people behave badly and are excluded. Their refusal to support fair admission means that some schools would face an unfair share of the responsibility to offer high quality education for all. Their introduction of five-plus and reintroduction of the 11-plus would mean young children labelled as "difficult" spending their entire education outside mainstream education.
	A decline in the standards of behaviour, civility and respect should be a source of concern to all those who care about the future of our country. However, politicians who are fit to govern have a duty to present honest solutions that seek to tackle complex, long-term problems in a serious way—solutions that recognise the need for long-term strategies, not short-term headlines. The Conservatives had 18 years of unbroken rule in which they had a unique opportunity to build a different kind of society. Instead, the consequences of their values and policies can be seen all around us. Ill discipline in our schools, antisocial behaviour in our streets and poor parenting are not the sole responsibility of the Conservatives, but the tragedy is that when faced with choices in Government, they turned their back on the big issues that determined the long-term nature and character of this country.
	This Government will not shirk from the big issues. We will continue to put the rights and responsibilities of citizens at the heart of our determination to raise standards and rebuild the fabric of entire communities.

Hilton Dawson: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Hilton Dawson: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Vera Baird: It is perfectly clear that the Conservatives' motion would not only demote the paramountcy of the child's welfare and make it a mere "priority" but introduce a legal presumption that any parent should be entitled to contact, irrespective of what they had done, as long as they did not present a danger. Is that really what the hon. Lady intends? Will she explain why she is specifically removing the paramountcy of the child's welfare?

Vera Baird: The hon. Lady is seeking to judge me harshly; I assume that is for reasons of self-defence. It is perfectly clear that the word "paramount" has been removed from the Conservatives' motion. "Paramount" means that the welfare of the child must come top, first and in front of everything else. "Priority" is a much softer word; it suggests that the interests of the child must take priority only over some things. I shall ask her a straightforward question: does she intend to demote the welfare of the child to below the legal right of any parent to have contact? That is what the motion says.

Jonathan R Shaw: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Richard Allan: I have been listening carefully to the hon. Lady, both today and in the interviews she has given on this subject. In trying to decide whether to support her proposals, I need to establish whether, in a case in which safety was not an issue, if a court received clear advice that reduced or no contact was in the best interest of the child, the court would be able to follow that advice. Or would it, under the hon. Lady's proposals, be required to maintain contact even if it were not in the best interest of the child?

Hilton Dawson: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Margaret Hodge: I agree with the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) that the issues surrounding residence and contact for separated parents and their children are both contentious and high profile. I agree with her, too, that that is in part for understandable and legitimate reasons. However, I regret deeply the recent attempts by Members of Her Majesty's loyal Opposition to try to gain political advantage on the back of the personal trauma and unhappiness of many families.
	Working to establish rational and just policies in this highly emotionally charged area of public policy is both difficult and challenging. But that is what the Government are determined to do.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Margaret Hodge: We know that more than 150,000 children each year experience the emotional distress of their parents' divorce. We know that two out of three of those children are under 10, and one in four is under five. We know that around one in every five children is likely to have to go through their parents' separation and divorce before they reach the age of 16.
	Given those figures, it is also important, in terms of tonight's debate, to acknowledge that most parents who separate and divorce deal with the issues involving parental responsibility, residence and contact between themselves, without recourse to the courts. In fact, nine out of 10 do so.

Peter Luff: I agree with the Minister that this should not be a matter of deep party-political controversy, but she has scored more party-political points in her opening five minutes than my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) did in her whole speech? If she really wants a non-partisan debate, I suggest that she reflects on her use of words in this debate.

Margaret Hodge: In a minute. [Hon. Members: "Give way."]
	In the summer, it seemed to us that the Tories, as the hon. Member for Beaconsfield has done now, were flirting with those who advocate equal parenting or 50–50 parenting. They chose to join—

Dominic Grieve: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Lady knows well from past debates that I have never made any reference to equal parenting in the context of 50–50 splits. Is it therefore in order for her to mislead the House with further invective, rather than engage in rational debate?

Margaret Hodge: I have just been accused of misleading the House. I certainly did not. According to any common understanding of the term "equal parenting", it means a 50–50 division. If Opposition Members choose to join those who focus on adults' competing rights rather than concentrating on parents' responsibilities and their children's needs, they are taking the wrong route.

Theresa May: I am grateful to the Minister for finally giving way. She and I have taken part in a number of interviews about this, and she has taken every opportunity to raise the 50–50 issue. My colleagues and I have made it clear that we have never suggested a 50–50 split. Will the Minister now withdraw her statement that that is our party's policy? Will she also tell us how it is in children's best interests for proper contact with both parents not to be resumed?

Margaret Hodge: I will come to that last point shortly, because we believe that when it is safe that should happen; but the right hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Beaconsfield must be the only two people in the world who do not interpret equal parenting as 50–50. I agree with the right hon. Lady about one thing, however. It appears that since the summer, Members in the typical modern Tory mould have withdrawn from what I consider to be an extreme position: the view that children should be divided like possessions, and shared equally between their parents. I welcome that retreat, but in calling for us to introduce a legal presumption of something that they call co-parenting, Conservative Members are perpetrating a con on distressed parents who desperately look to others to resolve their bitter conflicts. If co-parenting means an attempt to establish two paramount principles, that argument is conceptually flawed. Either the children's interests come first, or the parents' rights do. The Conservatives should make up their minds and come clean.

Margaret Hodge: I am saying that it is unnecessary, I am saying that it is misleading, and I am saying that it would confuse. The right hon. Lady did not take up my challenge to demonstrate that there was bias in the courts' administration of the system, as she pretended. I have no evidence of such bias in the legal system.
	Case law has established that unless there are cogent reasons against it, children are entitled to know, have the love of, and enjoy companionship and time with both their parents. That is why contact is refused in fewer than 1 per cent. of cases heard in the courts. We already have a legal framework which recognises that children's interests are best met by the maintaining of a relationship with both parents when that is safe.

David Heath: I agree, and I hope that we can now proceed on a basis that is a little more edifying.
	The timing of this debate is unfortunate, as we have not yet had responses to the Green Paper, which is a serious piece of work and deserves our proper attention, and because the Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs, so ably chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), is even now taking an abundance of evidence and is yet to reach conclusions. His plea to both sides of the Chamber not to close down options until that process was complete was entirely appropriate. Sadly, it went unheard by those on both Front Benches.
	Let us set out some parameters for the debate. My colleagues and I stand foursquare behind the principle of the paramount interests of the child. We do not resile from it for one moment. Interestingly, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) made it clear that he shared our position, but that was not reflected in responses to interventions in the opening speech of his colleague, the hon. Member for Maidenhead, which is regrettable. Regardless of what we believe to be the best interests of the child, that should surely be our starting point, and the child should not be treated as just one of the goods and chattels up for disposal between the separating parties.
	It is reasonable and proper to say that in most cases the child's interests are best served by parenting involving both parents, if there are no other factors that create a barrier to that. In that, I have no difficulty in supporting the Conservatives' basic contention. It is also important to note that it is always better, if at all possible, to proceed by conciliation and mediation rather than a divisive and confrontational process. However, I note the words of Lord Justice Munby, whose views I have learned to respect on these matters, in his evidence to the Constitutional Affairs Committee:
	"In an ideal world one would hope that parents could reach an agreement on these matters without outside assistance. We do not live in an ideal world. If outside assistance is required, then mediation is infinitely preferable to the court process. There will be an irreducible number of cases which have to come to court."
	Most of us recognise the truth of that.

David Heath: I do accept that, and I shall have a little more to say about it later.
	I came to the debate predisposed to support the motion moved by the hon. Member for Maidenhead, but I have to say that on occasions she made it rather difficult for me to do so. I was concerned at her assertion that the vast majority of cases leave the father outwith a satisfactory conclusion. I do not believe that that is supported by the evidence. There are certainly many—too many—cases in which the fathers are very worried about the outcome and the arrangements for access, but I cannot accept that such cases are the vast majority. I hope that she may reconsider that.
	We had a debate about paramount interests as against priority. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield has satisfied me on that point in a way that the hon. Lady did not. It was unworthy to say that the Government's position is that two parents are not in the best interests of the child. That is not their position. To characterise and caricature the position of either side in this debate is profoundly unhelpful. We need a sensible and mature debate.
	I have one quibble with the wording of the motion, and it is an important one, concerning the point made by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson). The motion refers to
	"a legal presumption of reasonable contact with their children, except where a child's safety would be at risk".
	The child's safety is an insurmountable problem when it comes to access, and we should recognise far more often the problems that sometimes arise in respect of child abuse. I would go further and say that it is a question not simply of the child's safety, but of risk of harm in the wider sense of the word.
	Let us consider a case involving prolonged domestic violence, occasioned by a father on a mother. There is no question about the loving relationship between the father and the child, but the father has behaved in an appalling and violent way towards his spouse. It is not hard to see that such behaviour could have an enormously detrimental and harmful effect on the child, so it would be entirely proper for the child to take the view that, although their safety was not in doubt, there was a risk of harm if the father had access to the family home and they had to re-live an earlier experience.

Peter Luff: I disagree profoundly with the hon. and learned Lady, for reasons that I will come to later. That is one of the key points that I wish to make. I think that she is wrong, because the paramountcy of the child's interests obviously depends on having proper parenting behind that child. The access to parents lies at the heart of the paramountcy. Those are not contradictory but supplementary notions. I cannot understand the point that she is trying to make.
	I wanted to speak in the debate for two reasons. First, I wanted to make a point that needs to be made and to which I attach great importance for reasons that I will explain: families and children genuinely need fathers. I regret the gender-specific nature of that observation, but it needs to be said. My motive for speaking in the debate, as the House will see, is that I believe that families need fathers.
	My second reason for speaking is that I want strongly to support the policy change that lies at the heart of the official Opposition's motion
	"that separated parents should each have a legal presumption of reasonable contact with their children, except where a child's safety would be at risk".
	I take the point made by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). I took that to mean "or harmed". I think that that is a semantic, not a substantial point. The hon. Gentleman makes a fair and reasonable point that I hope that my Front-Bench colleagues would accept in a manuscript amendment, if they could. Certainly my support for the motion incorporates the view that he expressed. It is a useful but small point.
	I enter the debate with some reluctance because the issue is a minefield. I am not a lawyer, and unlike the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre, I am not a former social worker. My experience comes not from any professional expertise, but simply as a member of the human race.
	I regret the polarisation in this important debate. There are some, as we have heard from some remarks from the Government Benches this evening, who give primacy to the perfectly understandable and reasonable concern about the brutality that men too often show to women and children. That is an important feature of the debate. There are others, such as Fathers 4 Justice, the selfishness of whose very exploits speaks volumes about the character of the men themselves and leads one to doubt some of their claims. There are two extremes that often polarise debate and prevent the search not for a consensus but for an honest debate about the issues raised.

Peter Luff: I will not speculate on that point, because I know of cases in which mothers have invented such allegations to enhance their cases for trials or even to make their children afraid of their father. Anecdotes and speculation will do us no good at all. We must stick to the facts, which are often elusive in such cases. That argument can be had both ways.
	We are discussing the failure of relationships. The increasing number of relationships that break down makes the matter more important with each year that passes. Between 150,000 and 200,000 parental couples separate each year. It is estimated that 28 per cent. of children—more than one quarter and almost one third—are personally affected by divorce by the age of 16. Those of us who were brought up in the '50s and '60s regard that as an extraordinary statistic. In our years at school, hardly any of our friends had parents who were separated or divorced, but I know from my children's experience that it is commonplace for children in their class to have separated parents. That is a real problem, and this House should assert that marriage is the best way to bring up children—I am sure that the Minister agrees with that—and that couples should make greater efforts to stay married. There is social pressure to regard marriage as another disposable commodity, which it is not. If we could restore the primacy of marriage and keep more relationships together, today's debate would be much less important, because many fewer children would be affected.
	I freely acknowledge that good outcomes are still possible for children after the divorce and separation of their parents. A good outcome was not possible for me because my father died, but in cases involving separation and divorce, which we are discussing today, the father or mother is still there to provide love and care for the child in a co-parenting relationship, if a framework exists to make that possible.
	When parental separation is badly handled, conflict is often played out around or through children. I can think of current high-profile cases in which that may be true. Where children lack a safe and secure environment, the impact on them is immensely damaging. Mothers and fathers must be careful about their true motives when fighting custody and contact battles through their children. Children who have been fortunate enough to enjoy effective parenting in which their fathers have been actively involved in their lives experience better educational outcomes, better relationships with the police, law and order and crime and better protection from mental health problems.
	Time presses on, so I shall concentrate on the views of the Solicitor's Family Law Association, which fears that the heightened language in the current debate, some of which we have regrettably heard this evening, has made it much more difficult for people to find a way forward to resolve difficult cases. It is possible to return the debate to the middle ground in the interests of the children of families who separate, but that requires more action from the Government than they are currently prepared to concede.
	As far as I am aware, the SFLA is not an organ, tool or mouthpiece of the Conservative party. It has been committed to minimising conflict between separating parents for more than two decades and I have huge respect for what it has to tell us about its experiences. It played a leading role in developing mediation services to settle family disputes and, through its code of practice, it promotes a constructive approach that encourages parents to resolve their differences outside the court system, wherever possible. In my constituency, I have always been deeply impressed by SFLA members' views.
	Thankfully, as we have heard today, most parents who make arrangements involving their children do not involve the courts, but a growing number do. The SFLA rightly believes that those applications to court could be avoided and its useful report, "Practical Steps to Co-Parenting", makes several useful recommendations that it and I believe would help to improve the legal framework for parental disputes. It says:
	"There is no magic solution to some of the difficulties experienced by families caught up in legal disputes over children—the challenge of solving many of the toughest problems often falls outside the scope of the courts and relates more to ongoing bitterness between couples following relationship breakdown rather than to issues capable of judicial resolution."
	In other words, this lies largely outside the political arena and inside the intensely personal one. There is a limit to what we can achieve, but I believe that we could do more to create the framework that is necessary to achieve the outcome that the SFLA recommends.
	The SFLA says that it is talking only about the extreme cases, but I believe that those are representative of a much deeper pool of unhappiness, perhaps involving many disputes that, as it acknowledges, do not come before solicitors but lie untested by the courts. As I hinted earlier, I know from my own personal experience that such cases exist.
	The SFLA recommends nine action points, the first of which, intriguingly, is that
	"There should be a statutory presumption that children should have an on-going relationship with both their parents unless there is a clear reason why this would not be in their interests."
	That is a different form of words from "safety nor harm", but the same basic principle applies. It continues:
	"This addition, together with a change to the legal language of 'contact and residence', would help make it clear to parents what is expected of them."
	I point out to the Minister that the SFLA seems to support the principles that lie behind the Opposition motion. She should reflect earnestly on the important fact that the core of our motion equates to the first recommendation of the SFLA's report.
	The report says: "Co-parenting,"—not the 50:50 arrangement of the Minister's imagination—
	"where both parents offer physical, emotional and financial support to their children, must be in the best interests of the children, other things being equal."
	It says—this is a nice phrase—that the child
	"should not be seen as a 'timeshare'",
	and discusses forms of co-parenting that are not crude 50:50 relationships, but structures in which co-parenting can work effectively and properly. It talks, as did the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre, about the need to listen clearly to children and ensure that they are not dragged into disputes in the courts or required to attend court. It has a host of practical suggestions that require legislative change to create a more desirable outcome. I find the Government's complacency disappointing.
	The president of the family division, the right hon. Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, rejected the arguments for an outright presumption. Giving evidence to the Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs, she said:
	"we can only have one presumption that the welfare of the child is paramount. If you have two presumptions, which takes precedence? . . . the word 'presumption' is different in the law than perhaps it is for the public. If you have a legal presumption, you have to apply it, except in exceptional circumstances. The legal presumption is the welfare of the child."
	But she continued:
	"I can see a case for something slightly less, such as that the court should have regard to the importance of a relationship between the children and a non-residential parent."
	Even Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, who seems to reject the idea that the SFLA and I believe to be right, acknowledges that something needs to change.
	The Minister had her rant attacking us for partisan reasons, but there is a strong consensus out there that something must be done to change the situation to make a better framework for children. I know that she shares a passion for children, but I hope that that is not too coloured by a passion for her political party.

Vera Baird: I know that one of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues wants to speak as well, so I shall not give way.
	Equal responsibility for the nurturing and parenting of children by fathers is critical, not only to meet the best interests of children, but, quite frankly, to promote the interests of women's equality in all aspects of life. We want fathers to be good parents if we are mothers because we want there to be equal responsibility. We want to be free to go our own way and to let men also go their own way. Women want men to be good parents, but I share the Government's view that a presumption of 50–50 parenting is absolutely not in the best interests of children.
	I have heard the protests from the Conservative Front Benchers, but it is clear that if they are going to talk about equal parenting, which they both have done, they should realise that the common usage of "equal parenting" means 50–50 parenting. They will either have to understand the terminology properly— [Interruption.] They will have to start to learn what the terminology means. There is no point coming here, using a term of art and then saying, "We did not really mean that." I am afraid that this tends to show that they do not know much about what they are talking about.

Dominic Grieve: I am sorry, but I cannot give way to the hon. and learned Lady. She never did me the courtesy of doing so, so she can sit down.
	I very much hope that the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service recovers from what has been a disastrous start, but frankly, the Minister cannot escape the fact that it is perfectly legitimate to raise the question of whether alternatives are available. CAFCASS might have a public law role in future—indeed, although there have been failings, that is the one area in which it has demonstrably produced benefits—but I am at a loss to understand the Government's desire to maintain its role in private law cases, given that that those employed to do the work are clearly ill suited to it. That is a legitimate subject for debate, and it is quite wrong for the Minister to attack us on that issue.
	I want to give the hon. Member for Shipley time to wind up, so I shall finish with this thought. The Government repeatedly refuse to consider any alteration to primary legislation. I do not understand why, except for the worrying conclusion that I have come to, which is that the Government's adherence to the belief that the state always knows best means that they are very reluctant to concede any more responsibility to parents when marriages come to an end, and that they probably regret the existence of parental responsibility clauses in the original Children Act 1989. That is a major philosophical difference between us, and we intend to debate it repeatedly with the Government, because it is essential that the public realise the direction that they are coming from and, much more worryingly, in which they are going.

Criminal law

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No.118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
	That the draft Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Categories of Offences) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 15th November, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
	Question agreed to.

Social security

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No.118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
	That the draft Social Security, Child Support and Tax Credits (Decisions and Appeals) Amendment Regulations 2004, which were laid before this House on 11th November, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
	That the draft Child Benefit and Guardian's Allowance (Decisions and Appeals) (Amendment) Regulations 2004, which were laid before this House on 16th November, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
	Question agreed to.

Building societies

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No.118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
	That the draft Building Societies Act 1986 (International Accounting Standards and Other Accounting Amendments) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 11th October, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
	Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN UNION DOCUMENTS

Flooding

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No.119(9) (European Standing Committees),
	That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 11422/04, Commission Communication on Flood risk management—Flood prevention, protection and mitigation; and supports the Government's view that cooperation and sharing of good practice with other EU Member States on the issue of flood risk management will be of benefit to the United Kingdom.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
	Question agreed to.

Richard Caborn: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) on securing this debate on the future of crown green bowling. This is a sport in which I have participated on a good number of occasions in my local park in Sheffield, Hollings End park, which is very similar to Hillsborough. There are two crown green bowling greens there and some excellent bowlers. As my hon. Friend said, the game is a major part of not only the sporting infrastructure, but the social infrastructure. It is a very desirable sport that has a tremendous following, in both participation and spectators. Many people go to watch it, and say that it is a delight to watch.
	I also welcome the opportunity that this debate provides for us to discuss a sport that is enjoyed by thousands of people in this country but is often left out by the media. Some years ago, crown green bowling got quite a lot of media coverage, but it does not get so much now, which is unfortunate. Like my hon. Friend, I come from Sheffield and know many of the people to whom she referred. They are tireless campaigners for crown green bowling, and I join her in noting that they contribute a tremendous amount on a voluntary basis to the communities in the various parts of our great city.
	I also go to Bramhall Lane, the mecca of football that houses Sheffield United, the one great team in Sheffield. A gentleman called Robert Jackson also goes there, and he is associated with crown green bowling. He was the BBC commentator on the sport for many years; he brought "Praise or Grumble" to light, and similar programmes have now been reproduced by many local radio stations. He lobbies me on the issue of crown green bowling every time I go to Bramhall Lane.